A Minute-Long Caesura

Since the video is intended to give a message wordlessly, I'll say nothing. So here it goes. Enjoy.

V for Vendetta?

On page 52, Nancy's boyfriend gives a thorough description on the last moment he saw the Clutter's before the murder, which I now know will happen. I believe one can relate to nowadays, where people tend to be part of drama. As soon as there is an issue, everyone tries to be involved. About a month ago I was riding my car when a lady began crossing the streets without looking to see what was coming. Unfortunately, the car in the lane beside ours crashed into her. The woman didn't die, she was barely hurt, but every person around had to give their opinion about how everything happened. The hurt woman was dazed and wanted to leave but people didn't care; they were trying to convince the woman to sue. People just exaggerated the events. I bet Nancy's boyfriend mourned her but it's not relevant that when "[he] thinks back, [he thinks] someone must have been hiding there. Maybe down among the trees. Somebody just waiting for [him] to leave." Now I feel he's just trying to be part of this interesting event in Holcomb.

Imagine the effects of a crime like this on a podunk like Holcomb. Chaos! Who can you trust, now that everyone seems guilty? Where once you saw neighbors today you picture murders. It's just like a game of Clue, everybody's pointing fingers.

And for Perry and Dick, as I have read their thoughts I think they might have planned the murder scene oh-too-well to leave evidence behind... I sure hope they get caught like in CSI where the police finds the most simple proof and  it helps solve the case. I actually don't want to go to sleep now because these descriptions about the scene gave me chills, but also caught my attention just like it attracted the media to Holcomb. 

Good To Go

Two blogposts ago I wondered what would be the reasoning behind Dick and Perry's involvement in the murders if they were the killers. On page 43 I found what might lead to the answer. What is Perry's flaw? "Explosive emotional reaction out of all proportion to the occasion. Why? Why this unreasonable anger at the sight of others who are happy or content, this growing contempt for the people and the desire to hurt them?" (43) If that isn't enough proof, I don't know where I will find it. Up to now, all I can do is hope Willie Jay exerted enough influence on Perry for him no to be a killer. 

On the other hand, I also consider Perry. After a long wait, he missed his idol's departure. I would feel crestfallen, and actually relate perfectly. Just a few days ago, tickets for the Taylor Swift Red Tour  became available for pre-sale. My mom didn't believe me when I told her we had to order fast. 45,000 tickets are taken and I've got none. Same feeling for missing someone we admire. Hang on there sunshine, you're friggin' special. If I didn't die, you're GTG.

Before this encounter with my soulmate (only when it comes to lamenting that person you really admire), I found an interesting sentence. To put you in context, Dick and Perry considered asking nuns for black stockings but talked each other out of it to avoid the bad luck these holy women are supposed to bring. "Some others were the number 15, red hair, white flowers, priests crossing a road, snakes appearing in a dream." (42) Who has ever heard of white flowers bringing bad luck? I'd be dead by now! And red hair? I'm sure that genetic mutation, like any other, will not influence luck. Being born with red hair isn't an omen of any sort. Not to mention priests crossing a road. What are they supposed to do, jump over it? It seems funny that two of these forewarnings are related to Church. GTG, but beware these unworldly signs!

Who'd Have Known

When I hear the word "spellbound," I think of fantasy and vampires, or a book I read last summer, or was it Spirit bound? Anyways, the last thing I would think about is the National Spelling Bee, but there's great wordplay in the title. 

When watching the documentary I can relate to Holcomb. Perryton, Texas is not as small as Holcomb used to be in the 1960's but has only 8,802 people. In relation to nowadays, that's like nobody. It's four times the amount of students at CNG. I swear I'd get so bored I'd start flipping tables or something. Moving on, in both bubble blanks, o podunks (yes Mr., I used your words!), people have very little to do, which often leads to children enrolling into activities like these. When the first child won, her school and many others celebrated with her. Wow, did those knows travel fast! This event shows that everyone knows other's business in these places. Aren't Perry and Dick intimidated by this, or are they careless about what people think of them? They already are margined and seen to be very lonely, except for each other's presence.

In my class we also discussed a song titled "In The Garden." It's a Christian song. What I find interesting is that Capote just placed some lyrics in a random place, but in the next chapter he disguised them. Why would he do this? Who is the audience? Had I not researched the lyrics, I might never have realized this! This also implies these forgotten places are religious. Who'd have known. 

Those Heroes That Avoid Leotards

Ever since I didn't finish the essay in class, I've been in ineffable despondency, or a great state of low spirit because of hopelessness on my grade. I just used one of my vocabulary words. Oh yeah. Into some more literary business, as I read about the 4H- Club on page 34, all I kept thinking about was Colombia. If the state invested more money on programs like this one, maybe the crime rates would go down. Once again, the state already invests in programs like these. Maybe they are not even working because a city like Bogotá is a whole other scale compared to Holcomb.   

Mr. Clutter reminds me of Take the Lead's Pierre Dulaine. The idea is similar. A man who sacrifices his time to help children stay out of trouble. I feel glad to see people like these exist, even in fiction. Catalina Escobar is a clear example of sacrifice to help others succeed. She has scarified time and money to help more than 84,000 less-fortunate people, educating them and helping them succeed in life. 

Back to the book. My group and I had many doubts when it comes to Dick and Perry. First off, are they the murderers? They sure sound suspicious, buying "a hundred yards long [rope]-quite enough for 12." Twelve what? Persons? Dogs? Fishes? Also, what is their reason to be planning a massive murder? Both men suffered accidents, do they seek revenge from those who were involved in the accidents? Lastly, I have a prediction to make. Capote has never directly stated Dick and Perry are the murders so there is a slight chance everything they are doing is for something other than going on a killing free. Let's just wait and see!

It's All About The Wordplay

Why would Capote narrate so thoroughly and give so many details in a chapter titled "The Last Who Saw Them Alive?" Exactly because they were the last people who saw those six who we know will die, before they do. The long sentences, syntax, and specific descriptions, the way the author writes, supports what Capote is showing.

The word choice is also specific. The words he uses and order in which he places them makes me consider his sentences different from how most people today speak. I question myself whether it is a certain accent from Ohio, the sentence construction from 1966, or just Capote's style. Some of the words he included that I didn't understand were:

Austere: strict or severe appearance

Gewgaws: worthless, showy things

Mongrel: dog without a particular breed

These I wrote down without research because I remember from my job as a Lexicologist. I'll just give myself a pat on the back.

Tidings: announcements

Hued: color or shade

Keening: wail in grief for a dead person

Scuttling: Run hurriedly or furtively with short quick steps

I actually think these last two words sound mysterious... somebody keening means somebody has died and any person scuttling could be a suspect... hmm.

Lastly and severely out of topic, I found a reference to Gulliver's Travels, which I remember from the multiple choice test I took last week, on page 26: "Presently, more calmly, Mrs. Clutter asked, "Do you like miniature things? Tiny things? " and invited JOlene into the dining room to inspect the shelves of whatnot on which were arranged assorted Lilliputian gewgaws..."

Last thing, I promise. It's funny that Mrs. Clutter, who is a wreck of a person and owns a collection of mismatched things, has a last name that is defined as "a collection of things lying around in an untidy mess." It's all about the wordplay.

In Capote Blood

In Cold Blood. Even before I began discussing the book I already expected murder to be part of it. Surprisingly, I had read the first excerpt and never suspected murder to be part of it! The whole text is cause and effect, but so are small pieces of it. Hard to believe the book is the result of combining various essays, all of them following the pattern of cause and effect. For example, it took Capote eight pages to introduce the first person who will die. Six to go!

This is a clear example of the author's style. He could just have said, Herbert Clutter is one of the six people who will die, but no, his style is much more complicated (or elaborate) than that.

As soon as Capote introduces the five hunters from Ohio, he talks about Clutter dying. I'm sure their mysterious appearance is relevant. I'm also sure Capote has nerve. Nowadays, I'd think twice or even three times, before allowing strangers into my land (or home). Crazy people back then. Sincerely, I like how trust was gained. Today one can't even trust siblings.

Indian Independence Part 3

Amazingly enough, all three speeches were related to Indian independence from Britain and the many points of view on this topic. This is a text that informs and up to where I have read, doesn't contain many arguements, giving little space for there to be rhetoric. 

Nothing will turn us from our path, or discourage us from our efforts.  

This is a clear example of tautology, isn't Churchill just rephrasing what he said? As I read on I found another example. This time it was the many questions fallacy.  

Can you wonder that they try in desperation to make what terms are possible with the triumphant Brahmin oligarchy?  

 Now, with this excerpt I'm not 100% sure but it seems like a many questions fallacy:

If that authority is injured or destroyed, the whole efficiency of the services, defensive, administrative, medical, hygienic, judicial; railway, irrigation, public works and famine prevention, upon which the Indian masses depend for their culture and progress, will perish with it.  

I kind of ran out of fallacies in this speech, but I did want to inform you about my findings in terms of rhetoric. This text clearly uses logos and pathos. In an attempt to appear sympathetic, Churchill introduces the British as fair and who try to help the oppresed Hindi, which, after reading George Orwell's essay, we now know isn't true. Word choice is strong. Churchill uses words such as "despise" when he refers to the way Brahim feel about the Intouchables. You would support the group that despised nobody wouldn't you? So would I. 

Following that I found more ethos and logos!  

Were we to wash our hands of all responsibility and divest ourselves of all our powers, as our sentimentalists desire, ferocious civil wars would speedily break out between the Moslems and the Hindus. 

No one who knows India will dispute this.

I'ma fall asleep alert! Buh - bye, over and out.

How To Beat Rhetoric

Let's see how Mr. George Orwell manages rhetoric. I hope he has less fallacies than Gandhi! Perhaps he had a better introduction than Gandhi. After reading a whole paragraph I found the first one:

"I was young and ill-educated and I had had to think out my problems in the utter silence that is imposed on every Englishman in the East."

Hasty generalization right here! Just because the silence was imposed on him doesn't mean it was imposed on every Englishman in the East.

"Feelings like these are the normal by-products of imperialism; ask any Anglo-Indian official, if you can catch him off duty."

This is an example of reductio ad absurdum because obviously an Anglo-Indian official will take a break sometime. Wow, this one is harder! I bet it's because this is an expository text. 

A little out of the topic, in Deb Unferth's revolution I used the word garish and now remember it means showy. By the way, as I read the following fragment I almost cried with sympathy:

"But I did not want to shoot the elephant. I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have."

Back to fallacies. Or maybe not yet (or not ever)

"When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick — one never does when a shot goes home — but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd. In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralysed him without knocking him down. At last, after what seemed a long time — it might have been five seconds, I dare say — he sagged flabbily to his knees. His mouth slobbered. An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years old. I fired again into the same spot. At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping. I fired a third time. That was the shot that did for him. You could see the agony of it jolt his whole body and knock the last remnant of strength from his legs. But in falling he seemed for a moment to rise, for as his hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upward like a huge rock toppling, his trunk reaching skyward like a tree. He trumpeted, for the first and only time. And then down he came, his belly towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay."

What an accurate title. As I read this and pictured it in my mind I must accept I did shed a tear. The advantages of reading and imagery.

THE END

I reached this pair of words and am sorry to say I failed. Just as that man failed to kill the elephant  without agony, it pains me to accept the world of rhetoric beat me once more. 2 - 0 and more will come.

Fallacy City by Gandhi

We all know who Gandhi is. That frail man who made India's revolution a peaceful one. It's amazing how uneducated people (in terms of rhetoric) fall blindly into a black hole of false logic. His speech has too many fallacies to be undetected.

Hasty generalization: It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses.

I'm absolutely sure what Gandhi perceives through his senses is not all the proof they got. I mean, the guy wore glasses. On we go with a false dilemma: 

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules." 

There are so many religions! Scientology doesn't even have a God. There are more options than just thinking there is a power that rules and not knowing what this power is because when people have a religion they are certain about what this power is. Gandhi also uses ignorance as proof.

"In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore." 

Gandhi didn't ask every single villager. I bet he asked a few and came up with this hasty generalization. 

They simply said some God ruled it. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God - the King of Kings.

Then I thought "King of Kings" was a tautology. It seems a tautology is different words with the same meaning, thus this idea was wrong. 

"I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, ever dying there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and recreates. That informing power of spirit is God, and since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is."

Just because Gandhi doesn't see anything that he can consider "the informing spirit of God," it just is. This is both a misinterpretation of the evidence and an example of the fallacy of ignorance. It's amazing Gandhi was able to fit two fallacies in one sentence.

"And is this power benevolent or malevolent ? I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists." 

False dilemma alarm. This idea makes no sense! How can Gandhi say there is only white (benevolence) when all he does is mix it with black (malevolence)? Theres is a spectrum of greys that result from this idea! 

"Where there is realization outside the senses it is infallible."

Fallacy of ignorance.  

"It is proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within. Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny oneself."

Reductio ad absurdum AND complex cause fallacy.

"I confess that I have no argument to convince through reason."

Dude, we noticed.

Misinformercials

I'll kick this post off by telling you guys the fallacious comment my aunt tried on my cousin. He attempted to eat a banana, one of the small variety, in one bite because my brother did it. He gagged when trying. "If Sergio [my brother] jumps out a window, would you to?" 

"If he survived I probably would."

"If he survived I probably would." Wow. That was the stupidest retort I've heard AND it sounded worse in Spanish. Sergio could lose both arms and a leg and still survive. There's nothing left to say here.

This little occurrence just took place in my house and was perfect to get in a rhetorical mood. 

There's an ongoing debate on topics like gay marriage and abortion. I ask myself whether the "right way" foul applies to this argument. I consider that like beauty, what's right and what's wrong is up to the person to decide. Concepts as abstract as these have no right or wrong. In my opinion, it just can't be determined. Others have a truth. One doesn't know if the opponent is lying, so one must focus on trying to find out.

1. Try to discover who's needs the persuader is trying to meet.

2. Understand how much of an extremist your opponent is.

Back to abortion, I asked some people whether they supported it, didn't, or wouldn't respond. More tan 80% of the people I asked told me "That depends on the situation, if my girlfriend got pregnant I'd make her get and abortion / I support abortion in are of rape." In this case there was no space for sussing but it was very close to assessing practical wisdom.

Off to another topic, Juliana's blog. Good analysis on the Pajama Jeans commercial even though, sadly, this product already exists and goes by the name of jeggings. Yup, you combine leggings and jeans to get these pants, which are just as comfortable as the Pajama Jeans and much prettier (as I see it). I do agree with Juliana when she says that the comparable experience is very clear and I do see it in many commercials when I wake up! Like this one. Or this one. Or all the other commercials that make me want to go back to sleep. And Isabella has the same thoughts.

Seems like every blog I've read (of the people who did their homework) talks about Infomercials. And it seems like I'm a rhetorical wit. Isabella's post showed me all the fallacies in the video she linked when  all I saw was an easy way for people with weak, not-so-sexy midsection into a world of ponies and better looking abs. Restating Isabella's rhetorical question, who'd have thought? Definitely not me!

Zenophobia: Fear of an open space in your knowledge

It sucks to suck, but it's even worse to be a suck-up. Or that's what I used to think until I read Chapter 15. If your rhetorical skills reach certain level, you can turn a rebel into a suck-up. There's only one way to protect yourself from the benefits (or evils) or rhetoric: education.

It's like taking a quiz without studying, it's highly improbable you pass the exam if you haven't studied or at least heard a little about the topic. Same thing with rhetoric. There are many people and companies ready to trick you with their fallacious arguments. Don't be alarmed, knowing about the topic will surely aid you.

--------------------------------------------------------

Following what Mr. Tangen does in class, I read the maxim at the beginning of the chapter. It reads:

Rhetoric is an open palm, dialect is a closed fist. 
                                                                - Zeno

I tried to close read it but all my ideas were vague, but it seems they were closer to the correct answer than I thought. On page 159, Heinrichs writes on how he "loves rhetoric's lack of rules." This lack of rules is represented by an open palm while dialect, with grammar, spelling, and its other categories in which one could screw up, is shown as a closed fist. Makes sense. If I were this Zeno, I'd have used other objects. One could consider Heinrichs used Zeno's maxim since, as I just discovered, he's a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and the creator of dialect. These two titans just collided.

Enigma Paradigma

Ok, so it has been hard to write this blogpost. I unintentionally left it for the last moment, but my nerdiness forced me not to procrastinate any longer. 

I know that an enthymeme uses commonplaces to convince the audience to make a given choice. The book give an example on page 125:

Babes go for Priapic owners.

You should buy a Priapic.

In other words, if you want babes spend lots of money on a Priapic. Seems simple doesn't it? Well, I spent like 10 minutes trying to write my own and this is what I came up with:

Concise blogposts are best and get high grades. (Proof or premise)

I'll get a high grade. (Conclusion)

Haha, see what I did there? 

My enthymeme falls under deductive logic, which starts with a premise (commonplace) and then applies to my specific case to reach a conclusion. Here goes another one:

The Weasleys are alive and well. (Example)

So, all gingers have a soul. (General fact)

I know, this one was a bad example of inductive logic. These types of enthymemes take "specific cases and [use] them to prove a premise or conclusion." (125)

I read the whole chapter and didn't find "paradigm." As I think of my cozy bed I give you this sort of mediocre definition of the word, the Internet's one:

A paradigm is a typical example or pattern of something; a model.

I still don't understand the context of this word in Thank You For Arguing, but I'll go sleep because:

To have a good day people need 8 hours of sleep.

I'll have a good day.

YOLO. 

Over and out.

Of Commonplaces and Clichés

Commonplace: the result of combining a cliché and a stereotype. Even though I hate both,  Heinrichs does make a point. Commonplaces vary but so should the settings. 

So I found a video which talks about rhetoric, jokes (this includes witty, facetious, and urbane humor), and commonplaces. Particularly the misuse of commonplaces. This man is witty. He says that if congresswoman Maxine Waters knows what happened to Whitney Houston she should "step away from the crack pipe, step away from the Xanax, step away from Lorazepam because it's going to get [her] in trouble." This is what results of congresswoman Waters calling Republicans demons and gangsters. Who failed with the commonplaces and is out of decorum now? I'd say both of them! To address and audience one needs to have a little background check on them. Had he been talking with friends the comment might have been funny but this comment on national television is a whole other level.

If people babbled, or repeated the same thing over and over about Maxine and one were to use that commonplace chances are your audience will reject you. Why? National television addresses a much to big audience and it's hard to win so many people. Commonplaces appeal a great majority of the people (thus their name) but there are too many opinions the speaker would try to mould. Here's where you need to find the broadest context, to define how to convince as many people as possible.

Other than humor and commonplaces one can give the audience facts and data. Logos, duh. This is called stance. The video teaches one how to convince your friends to vote. One has to use lots of rhetoric to convince them, especially facts to convince them voting is the right way to go.

"Controlling the Mood" Is In Da Hood

Now talking about pathetic, sympathetic, and empathy, pathos comes along. The chapter's introductory aphorism reminded me of APUSH. Back then, during the Great Awakening, preachers would give sermons with such fervor people were moved to tears. I wish I could move anybody to tears, even Mittens (my cat) would be satisfying. Between ethos, logos, and pathos, the last one would definitely need working on. I'm as sensible as baby skin. 

The text also showed me some interesting ideas. Emotion comes from experience and expectation. I might be wrong, but both of them relate to verb tenses.

Experience: what happened in the past. Thus, it is forensic but strangely doesn't mention blame.

Expectation: what will happen. Deliberative, but here there is no choice because the person expects whatever comes to him and has no choice.

Yes, I was wrong.

Anyways, the success of an argument which appeals to feelings is based solely on self-control. Ranting won't do the trick. Neither will name calling or having a fit. But under so much pressure to maintain composure in front of large groups, it's best to use simple words. Elaborating the speech will make everything look practiced. My only concern is that when one knows the person like a child knows his/her parents the speaker has enough knowledge to appeal on certain ways. What's the trick when one  has never spoken to the audience before? What should one do?

Chapter Nein

After reading more than eight chapters of Thank You For Arguing I've grown a little tired of lies. I realized rhetoric as a lie as a whole. You may think I'm repeating what I previously said, but I'm just supporting a hypothesis I considered before. In other words, rhetoric is having the ability to trick people. An example is ethos' third asset, disinterested goodwill. One can be the evilest person but if one is a good liar people will trust you.

I have two thoughts: Rhetoric is a strong weapon and one has to doubt people. The speaker wants you to think he or she cares for you when he doesn't, meaning that if a politician gets your vote, what will stop him from not achieving those things he promised? "Even if you are a chockfull of virtue, street smarts, and selflessness, if your audience doesn't believe what you are, you've got a character problem." (75) Why in the world would anybody read this and think about being a good person if they can (not so) easily trick others into thinking this? To make things worse, dubitio just expanded this web of lines into one that includes acting. Maybe Honest Abe wasn't honest after all. Maybe, just maybe, he made his audience believe he is honest, but not really... I'm not sure I like how rhetoric works.

Decorated Decorum and Not-So-Ephemeral Ethos

In any auditorium, an audience should be receptive and attentive out of decorum, nothing more. But getting this audience to like and trust you is a whole other deal. It's like trying to get a stranger to share secrets, very hard. 

The book quickly introduces some other three important ideas: the essential qualities of ethos.

- Virtue lets the audience know you share their values.
- Selflessness convinces them their interests are your only concerns.
- People with practical wisdom seem to know what to do in any occasion.

And talking about virtues I totally agree with Heindrichs. If a woman is with a guy she earns a reputation. If a guy is with women he is a hero. Depending on the audience, being or not being virtuous may suit the speaker's argument and convincingness. I was actually writing as I read and later into the book Heinrichs said exactly what I had thought. Truth is, sometimes a little lying is necessary to convince the audience. Decorum is about character but you don't have character. One thinks as on should.

This takes me back to the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So is the truth and values. They are different when they depend on other people because in rhetoric, being virtuous doesn't represent what is right but what your audience values. Once again AP Lang has proven everything is a lie.

Candidating Around

Fortunately the debate began with the most interesting topic, Libya. Both candidates sit beside a table and proudly appeal to character by wearing a pin of the American flag. Even though both men know how to argue, Obama seems more confident since Romney stutters, seeming weak. He definitely manages rhetoric because, after all, he has the hardest position to defend. In the debate he argued most convincingly. First, he appealed to character by stating that in his "job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe." The issue is demonstrative, showing the topic is related to values. Then he said that America must stand with democracy, appealing to ethos once more.

Then Romney, with a more softhearted tone, uses pathos when talking about the "4 people are dead in Libya," and how "[America's] hearts and thoughts go to them." He used present tense, thus the issue is related to values. Romney successfully changes to present tense in an attempt to convince the audience they they don't want another Irak or Afghanistan, convincing them that is their choice. Lastly, before changing to another topic, Romney says that what happens in Syria and Irak is unimaginable and they want a world of peace. Way to argue appealing to emotion.

Both candidates mostly appealed to values by using present tense, but since Obama is more relevant for the American people in terms of character, he used most ethos and forensic rhetoric. On the other hand Romney bases most of his arguments on the future where nothing can be held against him. Both candidates used rhetoric to suit their intentions in the debate.

To Lie or Not To Lie?

I don't believe what you say and you don't seem convinced by what I say. I think what you say is a lie and vice versa. So even if we don't think the same things, we do have something in common, the belief the other person's point in utter blasphemy. If it were a person, AP Lang would say that "it's all a lie." And since it is, Aristotle brought rhetoric to life. It did exist before though, but he gave it a structure so people could implement it. In a discussion where the other person doesn't acknowledge the veracity of my argument I must try to manipulate and change mind, mood, desire to act, or any combination of these. It is not easy I realized. Even though Heinrichs tried to convince me otherwise, Gaby and I both think there's a long way to go if one wants to use rhetoric successfully.

Actually, I doubt I have the ability to address each situation using pathos, logos, or ethos and aiming to change the person's mood, mind, and desire to act. Oh, and I forgot I must consider which tense is the most appropriate, past (forensic), present (demonstrative), or future (deliberative). Also, each of these has core issues of its own. Blame is related to the past because this already happened. Values are addressed in present tense and talking about the future questions a choice that might happen. And, generally, each of the tenses has an effect. I have to think about all of this to answer any argument and win it. To avoid getting owned I must literally overwork my brain. Maybe I never win arguments because I wasn't aware of rhetoric. Even though it's hard work, after some practice I might even have a debate about everything being a lie because if I succeed, what I say no longer will be a lie.

Pathos, Logos, Ethos, Chávez

I never imagined a book on rhetoric would ever make me laugh. I'm certain the book's audience includes teenagers because those jokes cracked me up. Heinrichs' allusions to pop singers Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are hilarious! Other than being funny, the book is actually interesting, but now I consider rhetoric as both a tool and a powerful weapon. Let's take Chávez as an example. That idiotic guy stands on a podium, convinces people to vote for him and wins the elections. Then he kills people, closes down embassies and frontiers, intimidates people, etc. Then he goes, addresses the audience once more and wins with 54% of the votes. I question these people's ignorance, but then reconsider. These people were tricked! Chávez used rhetoric to convince him his ideas and his interests would benefit the country. I'm sure these people don't know about pathos, logos, or ethos. Well, this guy is a professional "convincer,"to avoid calling him a liar. He appeals the masses, like every politician does. But he has his ways. He puts down competition so he can rise. He wears the Venezuelan flag to appeal patriotic people. He gifts home appliances to appeal the poor. How can compete with this level of rhetoric?

Ok, back to the lies and ways to convince people. To address a group of people, he must decide whether he wants to change their mood, mind, or willingness to carry put what he wants. I would think he aims for changing people's mind and making them both vote for him and support his ideals. But that's not all the time. In this particular speech, he also tries to change people's mood. The way he speaks and the harsh words he uses are convincing. For example, talking about the devil is something Muslims wouldn't understand but Christians and Catholics have the devil very present in their minds.

His techniques aren't the most subtle, but if he is doing bad things and people are keep on voting for him, he must be convincing a large group of people (not including me).

Alive Metaphors

George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" gave me more to talk about.

In the next last 20 pages I've read I noticed that Unferth doesn't use any "dying metaphors." In fact, most of these metaphors (and similes I daresay). Examples of these correct ways to create imagery would be on page 40, where Unferth writes about how George "clicked into place like a battery." Then, she exposes how the girls answered to her demands, "they faces like searchlights." (44) Both of these examples I've never heard before. They show Unferth's originality and how she is Orwell considers a good writer in terms of the correct use of today's modern English. 

This is supported because I intently searched for false limbs or pretentious diction. The only flaw in Revolution is the use of meaningless words. It's close to impossible to eliminate words that mean so much for one but might mean nothing to others. Unferth uses words like genius, hippie, etc. These words hold a stereotypical background that aids their concrete meaning but one can't plant thoughts in anthers mind. Leave that to Christopher Nolan's Inception. 

On a scale of 1 through 4, Unferth would score a 3 for correct use of the language in the present times.

The Year I (Stupidly) Fell in Love and (Even Stupider) Went To Join The War

Revolution, a title that gives me a lot to think about. Which revolution? When? Why? Could it be an internal revolution, a 360º change occurring in the author's mind? Nope. As I began reading the truth hit me like my brother does, really hard. All those socialist revolutions lead in Central America were gringos's adventure and Unferth and George didn't miss out on this.

So, how is Deb Olin Unferth writing? I would think Unferth is aiming for an audience of people who done some pretty stupid things and have lost themselves when in love, just like her. Some webpages say there is no correct or incorrect diction, just an appropriate one for whoever one addresses. What word choice would be suitable for this memoir about a woman who "[falls] in love and went to join the war?" Well, opposite to what I first thought, Unferth uses a broad vocabulary. Most of the words she uses are very simple, but others I have never heard before. The words she uses are so straightforward I thought English was Unferth's second language. I do feel Unferth's tone is neutral, but she does try to share with the readers how naive she was in terms of her love for George and uses pathos for us to feel sympathetic as we read what she went through. 

For the couple, it soon became "us against them." (25) Whatever they confronted and Unferth's feeling towards this were shown with the intensity of their words and actions.

Geroge and Deb work in a school where children who have seen their villages being burned down and hid in the bushes as their parent were ruthlessly murdered. "The first night of [her] civil war job [Deb] vomited four times." (33) That's pathos right there. Even though the couple's decisions have been stupid, I actually want to help these people. But on the other hand, when Unferth talks about a man she visited in her childhood, a man who "was blind but ... knew where the pictures on his walls and would bring [Unferth and her brother] and make [them] stand there. He could also play the ukelele. He was the most boring man I've ever known." (30) With this tasteless description about boring person Unferth passed on to me her feelings towards this old man.

Us Against The World

After reader, I now consider myself part of descriptivists, those who think believe that linguistic evidence proves correct usage of language and who "describe language as it is used." Even La Real Academia Española is a part of this. They have made slang a part of their dictionary. Times have changed and so has language. If slang has become part of formal writing, what's next? 

Immediately after I wrote this I had second thoughts. I'm not a descriptivist, I'm a prescriptivist. Prescriptivists "focus on how language should be used." That's what I support. People can modify the way they speak, but attempting to change how people write is a whole other story. It is not right.

I'm going to come forward with something here. Now I find myself self conscious when using the words "which," "that," and "who." I don't even know if I used them correctly in my first few sentences. But I can make mistakes since English isn't my native language, can't I? Nowadays, descriptivists accept that a native speaker can’t make a mistake. As a prescriptivist, a group of which I now consider I make part of,  I consider this utterly wrong. The messy part of this idea is that whatever the person says is right so how do countries full of immigrants work? And what about people learning the language? What should they learn if everything is right? Lane says he "[glories]  the real-world mess of dialects and slang." That makes non-natives have an absolutely marvelous time learning a new language with all the slang and no rules. I'd be ECSTATIC.

Then, Lane states how prescriptivists force non rules on schoolchildren. But ever since the English language had became more than a dialect, a "set of standard conventions for formal writing and speaking have been imposed." They are there for a reason and mustn't be modified. 

This reminds me of "Survival of the Fittest." The essay exposes how scholars could modify grammar because nothing was correct or incorrect. Some form of regulation was necessary to stunt the unparalleled growth of those creative intellectuals who sought originality through the modification of the language. Changes made by an insignificant number of scholars to limit these changes won't be likely to modify how people write unless severely imposed like English in Thiong' O's life. 

These regulations may be wrong, but its better to pass on a few mistakes in order to condense the spectrum in which these errors may reside. A little change is better than none. 

Lastly, Garner, my partner in the debate, appeals to the reader's logic by introducing examples and names that one must supposedly know. This might have worked because now I'm 100% a prescriptivist. 

The Essence of Remembrance

Our compilation of memoirs, The Essence of Remembrance, is now ready for anybody interested in reading it.  

To be continued...

Like I previously stated, most of Revolution's words are basic and easily understood, sans adjectives. For some reason authors go CRAY-ZAY with adjectives that few people know. Or at least some that I'm not aware of. Other than that:

Askew: to one side; out of line; in a crooked position.

"... It's a whole city, a thousand thin paths, kilometers and kilometers of housewives standing outside askew miniature-sized houses..." (5)

An askew hat.

Drab: Lacking brightness, dingy or shabby.

"They looked drab and disarranged beside their cop counterparts in fine suits and unhappy helmets..." (23)

 The entrance of a house that looks drab. 

Coterie: a group of people who associate closely, clique. 

"He had a coterie of friends since childhood, who were protective, fearful for him." (23)

There is an eccentric coterie beyond the sunflowers.

"God's" Rebel(ution)

Have you ever eagerly waited to read a book but then realize you know what will take place? I hope not. That just happened to me. Today, like 7 hours ago. "Close read," he said, "it'll be fun." he said. Pause, not. I began to read the book's back cover and SHAZAM, Deb Olin Unferth ruined 80% of her interesting story in about 5 minutes. What a way to hook the reader into buying your book. 

As I read the first fraction of the book the wheels of AP Language and Composition that now reside in my head began turning. Yep, that would be a first time. Thoughts suddenly hit me like an unexpected wave in the beach. Ideas about diction, tone, and word choice attacked me incessantly. This is how it goes:

Revolution, the story of a Christian couple interning themselves in countries suffering from Socialism, contains changes. I grasped Unferth's tone as a neutral, matter-of-factly one. Her words seem to the point and I didn't feel any of them catch my attention, thus her diction seems informal but careless.

So far, I haven't felt anything as I read other than frustration and loathe towards the couple. What do they think, that Socalist revolutions during the Cold War were a way to escape their ordinary Christian lifestyle? Instead of joining it they should have fought, supported endng of it! So much for being God's messengers.

B as in Blogpost

Watch out for correct use of quotations! Even though we didn't get the chance to see "someone with a beard dealing with a head cold," aka Mr. Tangen, we did learn how to use quotations and comma splices. Punctuation marks didn't just show up like McDonald's do, they have had lots of history.

Just like Dante's Inferno defined Italian, there were many books and authors that determined the use of certain punctuals. These people could even create their own symbols and nothing could be done about that. The importance of trend and the "survival of the fittest" explains how the most prominent punctuation marks survived while those with less use lay forgotten. In disagreement with the author, a smaller amount of punctuals don't make languages less rich, they make it easier to understand what is written. Even today many people don't use semi-colons or even commas. This blandness creates tangible and monotonous comprehension.

Diction(ary) II

Everybody loves music, Brent included. In the third section of the story he makes allusions to at least five songs. I'm sure he love the Beatles because most of the songs mentioned were theirs. But the story was written years after. He could have easily chosen the songs according to what was happening! It's all a lie! Even when he's watching a show called Quantum Leap. The main character travels back in time and stops people from making the biggest mistake of their lives. What are the chances he finds this series playing? There is the same probability that he watches the children at the DuPont Institute dine, feels repulsed because they are not able to eat well, and suddenly remembers the song "Man In The Mirror." I absolutely think Brent has modified his story.

Brent also has a defect. He wants to deal with his feelings alone. This leads to choppy dialogues in which he constantly uses expressions like:

- Oh
- Yeah
- Okay
- I guess

This uneven and many times sarcastic dialogue helps the reader shape Brent's attitude with others in one's mind. It is clear that he keeps things to himself, suggesting a secretive and confused character.
The fact that he changes so much helps one understand what built up and lead to suicide. He did not want to talk to others. Brent also used very basic vocabulary, the kind of words a 12 year-old would use to express himself. This, I believe, is in accordance with the story and not with the context. This is good.

Diction(ary)

As I read The Burn Journals I noticed changes in Brent's writing. Ever since I began reading the book he has shown many intimate details in terms of his sexuality and feelings towards women. I feel awkward when I read those passages, like if I were invading some guy's mind because what he says is exactly how I picture any male's thoughts to be. It's a memoir, that's exactly what I am doing. 

As he writes on, Brent deems the reader even more trustworthy. He also begins to become aggressive towards his surroundings, specially the psychologists. The intensity of his words and thoughts actually scares me. I think a child who thinks of suicide, curses all the time, and thinks of sex most of it is a time bomb. He increased the use of informal words, thus there is very familiar register. 

I consider Brent's excessive cursing part of a more intimate relationship with the reader. One doesn't just talk about "Dr. Prickhead" and "Dr. Dickhead" (pg. 190) in front of some unknown person. There has to be reliance to avoid any judging. Now I feel the text began in a restrained matter but has now blossomed to allow the reader to learn Brent's most intimate secrets.  

When The Eye Meets The Mind...and a New Word

The source of  the definition of these now-known words is dictionary.com, but most of the book is written with commonly used words.

Grafts: a portion of living tissue surgically transplanted from one part of an individual to another, or from one individual to another, for its adhesion and growth.

La-Z-Boy: (as in lazy boy) a manufacturer of reclining chairs.

 Roughhousing:  disorderly playing, especially indoors.

 Pennant: a flag serving as an emblem of victory or championship, especially in baseball.